Wireshark-dev: [Wireshark-dev] Re: wireshark_words.txt updates
From: Tamás Regős <regost@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2026 16:48:54 +0700
Hi Martin,
Literal vs PSNAME (and the other 2 as well) are pretty much mixed up and I was often confused which way would be the better.
I think it could be perhaps an additional MR to fix all dissectors? I know it would be quite an effort but then the code would be much more straightforward.
I used PNAME, PSNAME and PFNAME because I thought that would be the right way.
Since now it's mixed up, I fully agree with you to cover it the way you said. I guess your proposal is simpler, faster and easier to implement than eliminating all PNAME, PSNAME and PFNAME...
Regards,
Tamas
On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 at 16:43, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Tamas,Most dissectors use literals instead of PSNAME, etc - which I think I prefer.However, we could try:- moving find_macros() from check_typed_item_calls.py to check_common.py and use that. It looks for simple #define and also matches (some) enums - has been used to get numerical values so far- have check_spelling.py also call that function, and attempt to substitute for the psname arg if it isn't a literal string?From epan/dissectors:grep proto_register_protocol *.c | grep PSNAME | wc -l
169so I think it would be worth doing. I'm happy to look at this (or something simpler by only looking for PSNAME?), but it might be a few days before I get to it.Thanks again,Martin_______________________________________________On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 8:48 AM Tamás Regős <regost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Martin,"Words that appear as the name of a dissector/protocol should not be reported (the script checks for proto_register_protocol() calls and adds them to the dict)"...I am not entirely sure it works that way.In my case:packet-qcdiag.c#define PNAME "Qualcomm Diagnostic"
#define PSNAME "QCDIAG"
#define PFNAME "qcdiag"...proto_qcdiag = proto_register_protocol(PNAME, PSNAME, PFNAME);example "Clang + Code Checks" (passed):epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 10 / 3922 "packet-qcdiag.c" qcdiag -> ?...epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3902 / 3922 "qcdiag.ext_build_id.ver" qcdiag -> ?
epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3904 / 3922 "qcdiag.ext_build_id.res" qcdiag -> ?
epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3906 / 3922 "qcdiag.ext_build_id.msm" qcdiag -> ?
epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3909 / 3922 "qcdiag.ext_build_id.mob_model" qcdiag -> ?
epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3912 / 3922 "qcdiag.ext_build_id.sw_rev" qcdiag -> ?
epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3914 / 3922 "qcdiag.ext_build_id.mob_model_str" qcdiag -> ?
epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3915 / 3922 "qcdiag.cmd" qcdiag -> ?
epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3916 / 3922 "QCDIAG Command" QCDIAG -> ?
epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3917 / 3922 "qcdiag.subsys_id" qcdiag -> ?
epan/dissectors/packet-qcdiag.c 3918 / 3922 "QCDIAG Subsystem" QCDIAG -> ?qcdiag : 43If I add "qcdiag" to wireshark_words.txt, these lines disappear...What do you think?I will raise the MRs.Regards,Tamas_______________________________________________On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 at 15:37, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Yes, of course. A quick check for where 'len(word)' appears in tools/check_spelling.py - I think words < 5 characters won't be reported anyway, so some of the ones you mention would be too short.Words that appear as the name of a dissector/protocol should not be reported (the script checks for proto_register_protocol() calls and adds them to the dict), although the order that files are checked can obviously affect whether or not they have already been loaded.I see your other email about tools/check_spelling.py next - I was a little hasty in making these checking tools use concurrent.futures - the speedup is amazing though :)Your help in fixing this would be much appreciated.Martin_______________________________________________On Tue, Feb 3, 2026 at 7:57 AM Tamás Regős <regost@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Dev Team,_______________________________________________Is it OK to submit an MR for updating tools/wireshark_words.txt file with some words?For example: gsm, gsmtap, lte, nr, rrc, umts, wcdma?Regards,Tamas
Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Wireshark-dev mailing list -- wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to wireshark-dev-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Follow-Ups:
- [Wireshark-dev] Re: wireshark_words.txt updates
- From: Martin Mathieson
- [Wireshark-dev] Re: wireshark_words.txt updates
- References:
- [Wireshark-dev] wireshark_words.txt updates
- From: Tamás Regős
- [Wireshark-dev] Re: wireshark_words.txt updates
- From: Martin Mathieson
- [Wireshark-dev] Re: wireshark_words.txt updates
- From: Tamás Regős
- [Wireshark-dev] Re: wireshark_words.txt updates
- From: Martin Mathieson
- [Wireshark-dev] wireshark_words.txt updates
- Prev by Date: [no subject]
- Next by Date: [Wireshark-dev] Re: tools\check_spelling.py issue on Windows
- Previous by thread: [Wireshark-dev] Re: wireshark_words.txt updates
- Next by thread: [Wireshark-dev] Re: wireshark_words.txt updates
- Index(es):